April 22, 2008

Best Actress Corrective Drive Volume 1

Unlike many of my favorite bloggers, I am not an actressexual. I unjustly ignore the finest females the Oscars have to offer. There are two notable holes in my Oscar obsession: Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress. To put it bluntly, in numbers: I've seen 72% of the Best Supporting Actors but only 65% of the Best Supporting Actresses, and 73% of the Best Actors but a lowly 59% of the Best Actresses. The "why" is easy: the Best Picture nominees, which have been my primary focus, contain more solid, nomination-attracting roles for men than they do for women, and I'm not especially drawn to the kinds of films that tend to earn lone Best Actress nominations. But I'm in the process of repenting by making a concerted effort to watch enough of my remaining Best Actress nominees that I don't have to feel ashamed when the Oscar conversation comes around to percentages (and it always does).

So far, the results have been iffy: one pretty darned good, if overpraised, performance in a film that made me want to throw things at my TV; one nearly unwatchable performance in a film that is nearly unbearable; and an intermittently great performance in a patchy, made-for-TV-style film. Finally, though, a pioneering women-in-prison flick saved me from utter despair.

Diane Lane, Unfaithful (2002)
Lost to Nicole Kidman, The Hours

Performance: 3 goats, film: 0.5 goats

Although she gives it her all, Diane Lane can't save Unfaithful from its need to pin all the problems of the world on women's unfettered sexuality. No, I'm not overstating the case: this film actually sees a moral equivalency between a woman intentionally an affair and a man murdering his wife's lover. "What did you do?" a horrified Lane asks her husband Richard Gere; "What did you do?" he shoots back, and the film is on his side. That said, Lane's performance is half showy and half naturalistic. There are the obvious "Oscar scenes," like her hundred-expression trip down memory lane on the way home from her first assignation and the aforementioned horror at hubby, during which she shows a nice range of mannerisms that all the same announce themselves as mannerisms. She's better in the loose, playful (though sometimes borderline-idiotic) seduction scenes, in which she's basically the only actor in the film, as Olivier Martinez gives her as much to play off as a sculpture would.

Maggie McNamara, The Moon Is Blue (1953)
Lost to herself Audrey Hepburn, Roman Holiday

Performance: 2.5 goats; film: 2 goats

Maggie McNamara is in full Audrey Hepburn-as-plucky innocent mode; if, by the last reel, you're not calling her "Audrey" in your head, you're a better movie watcher than I. McNamara would have been fine, I guess, if Hepburn hadn't already hoed this row. She's playing a naïf who produces "shocking" statements about sexuality to the delight and/or horror of those surrounding her. Childlike in deportment, dress, and speech, she produces "virgin," "seduce," and "mistress" for the first time on movie screens, but the conceit of her character softens the blow each time: it's a shock, I suppose, but it's the shock of a child asking her mommy "what's intercourse?" instead of the knowing and subversive shock I think the playwright intended. The film repeatedly trips over its self-conscious daring, and William Holden reminds me again why I hate him, with few exceptions, between Sunset Blvd. and The Wild Bunch.

Jane Alexander, Testament (1983)
Lost to Shirley MacLaine, Terms of Endearment

Performance: 3 goats; film: 2.5 goats

I'm going to join the small but distinguished group of people (OK, one other person and his household) who don't share the adoration of Jane Alexander's performance or her film Testament, the tale of domestic nuclear apocalypse that was made for TV but released in theaters. The film itself is barely competent: it contains some great scenes, and then huge misfires, especially that cemetery kiss, the teddy bear hunt, and the gimmicky late-movie reveal of Daddy Devane's Final Call. Blech. Alexander's performance is the best thing in it, but it's a careful, studied performance in search of a real movie to inhabit, and nearly sunk by two ill-advised scenes of histrionics (see above). She's so much better at shell-shocked waiting and quiet determination than she is at screeching. Her performance is clearly the weakest of the '83 nominees I've seen (although I haven't seen Educating Rita).

Eleanor Parker, Caged (1950)
Lost to Billie Holliday, Born Yesterday

Performance: 4 goats; film: 4 goats

And finally, an outstanding film featuring most of a great performance: Eleanor Parker plays a naive girl processed by a corrupt prison machinery into a hardened crook. By "most of a good performance," I mean that the beginning and the ending are exceptional; it's the middle that's lacking. Parker transforms from a quaking child into a flinty con (with a weird but stunning stopover in Falconetti-as-Joan of Arc territory) over the space of a single scene change: she's denied parole, she freaks out, and then she's a spitting tigress, trading hair-pulls with Hope Emerson's formidable prison matron. But it's too sudden; there's no buildup to the transformation. This is more the screenplay's fault than Parker's, of course—given the script's limitations, Parker's inclusion in the best Best Actress lineup in Oscar history (Baxter and Davis in All About Eve, Swanson in Sunset Blvd., and winner Holliday in Born Yesterday) is well deserved.

Posted by mike, April 22, 2008 12:27 PM
Comments

I suppose I'm proving how sexist I am by not commenting on any of the female performances (the only one I saw was Diane Lane and the less said about that movie the better) but William Holden was great in Network, too. Hopefully, you agree with me and I haven't just annoyed the hell out of you.

I've always wanted to see Testament, though, if only to compare it to The Day After, which petrified me.

Posted by: Shawn at April 22, 2008 5:18 PM

I love him in Network too--it's post-Wild Bunch.

I believe I've seen The Day After too, and I think it terrified me. I think Testament might have been really powerful if I had seen it back in 1983, at the height of Reagan's saber-rattling campaign--it would have seemed completely possible that it could happen here, and that fear might have kept me from noticing the problems with the film.

Have you seen The War Game? It's a pseudo-documentary directed by Peter Watkins, about the aftermath of a nuclear attack on a British city. It's the only fiction film that has won the Best Documentary Oscar. (Because, you know, the people who choose the documentaries for Oscar don't know their own field.) We just saw his film Punishment Park, another pseudo-documentary that's completely horrifying (and great).

Posted by: mike at April 22, 2008 5:28 PM

(The exceptions to the William Holden 1950-1969 rule are Bridge on the River Kwai and Executive Suite.)

Posted by: mike at April 22, 2008 5:51 PM

Sorry I'm like a week late on this. I've been SO busy. Lol.

Like Shawn the only one I've seen is Lane, although I have seen all of the other nominees Parker was up against in 1950. A great year, though I can take or leave Baxter. I couldn't find Caged anywhere, otherwise I definitely would have seen it :-(

It's been a while since I watched Unfaithful but I remember being blown away by Lane. I recall thinking at the time that it was an incredibly messy, conflicting film, but that her performance had the raw, sexual bite that it so desperately needed. That train scene is golden (and again conflicting because Connie is pretty much put in her place rather than discovering what her place should be) but overall she played the tarnished woman so well that I actually felt tarnished myself by the end!

Posted by: Cal at April 29, 2008 8:36 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?